| Literature DB >> 22619574 |
John Gichuki1, Reuben Omondi, Priscillar Boera, Tom Okorut, Ally Said Matano, Tsuma Jembe, Ayub Ofulla.
Abstract
This study, conducted in Nyanza Gulf of Lake Victoria, assessed ecological succession and dynamic status of water hyacinth. Results show that water hyacinth is the genesis of macrophyte succession. On establishment, water hyacinth mats are first invaded by native emergent macrophytes, Ipomoea aquatica Forsk., and Enydra fluctuans Lour., during early stages of succession. This is followed by hippo grass Vossia cuspidata (Roxb.) Griff. in mid- and late stages whose population peaks during climax stages of succession with concomitant decrease in water hyacinth biomass. Hippo grass depends on water hyacinth for buoyancy, anchorage, and nutrients. The study concludes that macrophyte succession alters aquatic biodiversity and that, since water hyacinth infestation and attendant succession are a symptom of broader watershed management and pollution problems, aquatic macrophyte control should include reduction of nutrient loads and implementing multifaceted approach that incorporates biological agents, mechanical/manual control with utilization of harvested weed for cottage industry by local communities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22619574 PMCID: PMC3349089 DOI: 10.1100/2012/106429
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Map of the Nyanza Gulf, Lake Victoria showing the sampling sites.
Variations (Mean ± SD) in the physicochemical parameters between the habitats of water hyacinth complex. Values in parenthesis indicate the range.
| Habitat parameter | Water hyacinth | Hippo grass | Mixed (water hyacinth and hippo grass) | Open water |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secchi depth (m) | 0.35 ± 0.13 | 0.23 ± 0.10 | 0.31 ± 0.14 | 0.42 ± 0.12 |
| (0.10–0.45) | (0.15–0.35) | 0.15–0.45 | (0.25–0.60) | |
| Temp (°C) | 28.50 ± 2.39 | 26.80 ± 2.33 | 28.00 ± 1.77 | 27.70 ± 2.10 |
| (25.70–31.90) | (24.20–28.70) | (25.90–30.20) | (25.50–31.8) | |
| pH | 7.80 ± 0.82 | 7.40 ± 1.36 | 7.60 ± 0.40 | 7.80 ± 0.47 |
| (6.60–8.80) | (5.90–8.50) | (7.20–8.10) | (7.20–8.50) | |
| Turbidity (NTU) | 112.20 ± 111.79 | 461.30 ± 360.13 | 152.80 ± 121.89 | 71.1 ± 24.51 |
| (54.00–339.00) | (77.00–791.00) | (78.30–335.00) | (47.30–115.00) | |
| TP ( | 538.70 ± 823.37 | 486.9 ± 444.77 | 391.90 ± 147.04 | 208.10 ± 47.78 |
| (146.90–2216.90) | (179.70–996.90) | (179.70–511.10) | (149.70–284.00) | |
| TN ( | 975.20 ± 796.49 | 542.4 ± 139.30 | 587.80 ± 157.18 | 633.30 ± 118.73 |
| (750.40–2584.20) | (517.30–692.50) | (396.30–726.70) | (485.70–834.60) | |
| Chloro- | 9.90–5989.40 | 231.90 ± 367.83 | 301.80 ± 245.82 | 89.95 ± 76.81 |
| (1045.90 ± 1045.00) | (19.40–656.70) | (11.20–612.30) | (9.90–200.20) | |
| Algal densities (individuals/cells/colonies/L) | 12172.5 ± 16177.38) | 6914.67 ± 9340.42 | 8058.25 ± 5731.59 | 4772.12 ± 4264.31 |
| (700.00–36120.00) | (1493.00–17700.00) | (1652.00–15522.00) | (1116.00–13638.00) |
An inventory of the macrophyte vegetation and the proportions (%) observed at the sampled sites.
| Station | Vegetation | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Dunga beach | Hippo grass | 98 |
| Water hyacinth | 1.5 | |
| Nile cabbage/water lettuce | 0.5 | |
|
| ||
| Kibos | Water hyacinth | 50 |
| Hippo grass | 50 | |
|
| ||
| Sondu Miriu at interface zone | Water hyacinth | 50 |
| Hippo grass, | 50 | |
|
| ||
| Homa Bay at Samunyi—A | Water hyacinth | 90 |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 8 | |
|
| 1.5 | |
| Hippo grass | 0.5 | |
|
| ||
| Homa Bay at Samunyi—B | Water hyacinth | 90 |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 2 | |
|
| 8 | |
|
| ||
| Homa Bay at Samunyi—C | Water hyacinth | 60 |
| Hippo grass | 30 | |
|
| 8 | |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 2 | |
|
| ||
| Homa Bay (Floating mat) | Hippo grass | 85 |
| Water hyacinth | 10 | |
|
| 2 | |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 1 | |
| Common papyrus | 1 | |
| Ambach tree | 1 | |
|
| ||
| Homa Bay offshore (floating mat) | Water hyacinth | 99 |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 1 | |
|
| ||
| Oluch river mouth | Hippo grass | 99 |
| Water hyacinth | 1 | |
|
| ||
| Lwanda Gembe—A | Water hyacinth | 95 |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 1 | |
| Commelinaceae | 2 | |
|
| 2 | |
|
| ||
| Lwanda Gembe—B | Unidentified macrophyte—B | 90 |
| Water hyacinth | 5 | |
|
| 5 | |
|
| ||
| Lwanda Gembe—C | Water hyacinth | 80 |
|
| 15 | |
| Unidentified macrophyte—B | 4 | |
|
| 1 | |
|
| ||
| Lwanda Gembe—D | Water hyacinth | 90 |
| Hippo grass | 5 | |
|
| 5 | |
|
| ||
| Asembo Bay—A | Hippo grass | 100 |
|
| ||
| Asembo Bay—B | Hippo grass | 80 |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 20 | |
|
| ||
| Asembo Bay—C | Hippo grass | 80 |
| Water hyacinth | 20 | |
| Asembo Bay—D | Hippo grass | 90 |
| Water hyacinth | 9 | |
| Swamp cabbage/water spinach | 1 | |
|
| ||
| Asembo Bay—E | Water hyacinth | 50 |
| Hippo grass | 20 | |
| Water fern, Water velvet | 15 | |
|
| 14 | |
| Duckweed | 1 | |
|
| ||
| Asembo Bay | Water hyacinth | 90 |
| Hippo grass | 10 | |
Figure 2A pure population of the water hyacinth.
Figure 3Water hyacinth mat showing encroachment by Ipomoea aquatica and Enydra fluctuans.
Figure 4The late stages of macrophyte succession showing hippograss replacing the water hyacinth.
Figure 5The climax stages of the macrophyte succession showing a single population of hippograss.
Figure 6The sinking mats of hippograss after collapse of the water hyacinth substrate.
Figure 7Fragments of the hippograss at the bottom of the lake as obtained from the bottom trawls of the sampled sites.
Figure 8Relative abundance of different invertebrate species collected in the habitats of water hyacinth and hippo grass and in open water at different sites within the Nyanza Gulf of Lake Victoria.
Figure 9% composition of the fish species in the areas covered by water hyacinth complex.
Figure 10Percent (%) composition of the fish species in the open water areas.